Two emergency services needed
In regards to last issue’s Viewpoint [“Reduced ambulance service unacceptable,” February 22], I take issue with several of Rob Stokes’ points that are either wrong or misleading.
First, Stokes indicates that firefighters are taking it upon themselves to attend medical calls, when in fact they attend because there is a very great need that the BC Ambulance Service is not fulfilling.
Yes, the paramedics here do a great job, but when the first ambulance is busy between Lund and Saltery Bay there can be a considerable wait for a second ambulance to respond.
Stokes indicates that structure fires are decreasing. What experience is he basing that on? I doubt very much that is the case, based on my experience as a former fire chief. Structure fires will grow as the city grows, so I doubt they are decreasing as the city is slowly growing.
I also take exception to Stokes stating firefighters are so busy with medical calls that they can no longer carry out their firefighting duties.
That is a bold statement that I am sure the current fire chief might take exception to; I know I would have.
Paramedics such as firefighters are way better busy; it makes them better at their job and keeps morale up.
I doubt Stokes has ever experienced a life-threatening situation where he has experienced the wait while a loved one requires urgent medical attention.
I know I would rather have both services attend my medical emergency knowing that they are highly trained, and if one is delayed then the other should be there. That is my instruction to my family right now: “Should there be an emergency, call both services.”
I also take exception to Rob Southcott even commenting as he did on the matter, holding both a City of Powell River councillor position while he is also BC Ambulance Service unit chief here in Powell River. Seems to me that is a huge conflict of interest.
R.W. Langdale
Rutland Crescent
Difficult to understand
There are many ways of rationalization, but only one of logic [“Council seeks pay parity,” February 15]. There is hardly a person in Powell River who is not affected by our city council’s costs.
If council is attempting to be innovative over salary increases, it must take all residents into account. Therefore, a survey of all incomes from all people must taken and be readable by all residents, from those on public assistance income to top salary earners.
This should not include names, but rather salary/income, regardless of which earning or income-receiving bracket we each fall in. Then, and only then, show us the average income.
This to my mind would be the only logical solution to use income as the manner in which to increase mayor and councillor salaries based on residential income.
The other method seems to be by a generally accepted method, looking at other cities and municipalities of average populations versus Powell River. That would seem, in my opinion, to be just about where salaries should be, by population.
So, consequently, unless council uses logic, its special request is very difficult to understand. Particularly since the cost of living with city expenses applies to all residing here.
Bruce Robertson
Kiwanis Avenue
Pay a fair salary
How much should we pay our city councillors [“Council seeks pay parity,” February 15]? I was shocked last week to discover we now pay them just above $16,000.
I know from watching city council at work that these councillors could easily work full time given the number of issues they have to deal with. When it comes to paying democratic representatives, we need to ask the question: do we want to restrict who can be a councillor to those who are retired or financially independent?
I have heard rumors that at least one councillor will not be running again because doing the job properly makes it unaffordable. It would be a shame if we lost a dedicated representative because we are not willing to pay a fair salary, which at $16,000 per year is barely minimum wage for 30 hours a week. They deserve the increases they are seeking.
John Chan
Coburn Street
